Inconsistent accountability

The death by suicide of a former army man, a retired brigadier of the country’s premier spy agency no less, was an avoidable tragedy.

In his suicide note, Brig (r) Asad Munir was clear about the reasons that had compelled him to take his own life: he hadn’t been named in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference. He did not want the humiliation of being handcuffed and paraded in front of the media for something he hadn’t done. His last request was to the chief justice, to ensure that his name was cleared in the NAB investigation. It was an incomprehensible and premature end to the life of a man who was popular on the news talk shows circuit and on social media.

Munir’s death is not the first instance of a NAB investigation, one way or the other, involving death. In the third week of March, Raja Asim passed away in Camp Jail Lahore, after five years in custody as his case never reached conclusion. Another custodial death was reported in December last year, when a university official under NAB investigation breathed his last; he was still in handcuffs when he died.

This is beside the recurring refrain against NAB of political victimisation, with the legal fraternity, civil society, bureaucracy and the media having joined in the criticism of NAB’s laws, methods as well as authority. The criticism appears justified considering the difference – in terms of pace of action – between the treatment of senior leaders of the PML-N and the PPP who are under inquiry and that of those from the ruling party facing similar allegations. In the case of the Panama Papers some have even claimed that Nawaz Sharif has appeared in front of the accountability court more often than the combined appearances of those from the PTI whose names appeared in the leaks. One would need to verify this, no doubt.

All this is reflective of NAB’s questionable legacy. At its core lies the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999, passed by General Musharraf following his coup, with the stated aim of going after the ‘big fish’ – referring to politicians as well as state officials – involved in corruption. But it soon gave way to political expediency, with politicians facing harassment at the hands of the bureau, incarceration till exoneration, and loss of reputation unless co-opted. A former NAB chief publicly admitted that the cases against many leading politicians were withdrawn on the instructions of Gen Musharraf. Splinter groups like the Pakistan People’s Party Patriots and the Kings party are cases in point.

However, the concerns aren’t limited to NAB’s ‘selective actions. Most legal experts agree that the NAB law is a discriminatory piece of legislation. In what jurists consider a glaring violation of basic rights, the law has at its base the presumption of guilt, with the burden of proof on the accused. Then there is the issue of the duration of physical remand, with legislators seeking to reduce it to a fortnight instead of the current 90-day period. A third major concern is the power vested in the NAB chairman to determine the amount to be recovered in case of plea bargains. In a country like Pakistan, where kickbacks keep the wheel turning and accountability becomes a technique for governance, possibility of misuse of such authority is a valid concern.

Not just the law but its implementation also suffers from discrepancy, with even the courts censuring the bureau over its selective approach. It has come under criticism in parliament as well as in the provincial assemblies. The PPP sees persecution in the recent spate of arrests and inquiries against its leaders and the string of cases against bureaucrats believed to be partial towards it as a repeat of what was done in Musharraf’s time.

It is felt that NAB tends to be inconsistent in its actions even when they might not be dictated by political expediency, and this points to incompetence and confusion on NAB’s applicability of its own laws. According to the bureau, the ‘NAO is a federal law and is enforced on the same footing and there is no classification/difference regarding the practice and procedure applicable under inquiry/ investigation and trials as regards the accountability cases/references’.

However, while the Lahore High Court grants bail in NAB cases, the Sindh High Court refuses the same. A 2017 statement from NAB’s Karachi office justified continual custody stating that the NAO is a special law with overriding effect, and thus Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, has no effect and is of no consequence or applicability.

There is a need to reform and repeal the draconian elements of the NAO. It is equally important to ensure that the anti-graft watchdog is equipped with the wherewithal to disregard political expediency in pursuing cases against high-profile politicians. But above all, it needs to be ensured that the basic rights of those being investigated are not violated. We do not need to add handcuffed academics or manhandled politicians to the list of our already existing problems.

The writer is a freelance contributor.

He tweets at:   @Faysal_Chaudary